Handheld recs over 96khz?

[cjguitar]

I don't think one exists. The best I've seen for around that price is the Sony PCM-D50, which only goes to 96k, and has decent built in mics as well (no XLR preamps for external mics though). If you need 192k recording, I'd highly recommend the Sound Devices 7 series recorders, but they are far beyond your budget.

[EtherealEntity]

Thanks. You might well be right that nothing exists in that price range. If not that Sony looks very nice. Anything is better than my Alesis TwoTrack

I did just find this. Product: DR-680 | TASCAM which offers 192 stereo. No mics though - I would like some built in..but I guess most with this kind of quality are going to be larger field recorders for external mics. That one is 999 but can easily be found for 650ish.

Is there a chance there would be some above 96 but lower than 192 that may be cheaper? I doubt that though. 96 may suffice but I'm really interested to see the benefits that higher offers for pitch and time manipulation. I'll download some samples.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EtherealEntity

Hi guys. I'm looking for a high sample rate handheld recorder. It's easy to find ones at 96kHz but I want to go higher for sound design processing reasons. The higher the better - but my budget is 400 dollars. I'm guessing anything this price and spec will have decent mics? Preamp for other mics would be cool though if it's high quality. Thanks!

I'd be surprised if any cheapo 96k hand-help recorder can pick something up beyond 20kHz with the built-in mics.

The mics alone that you need to record 48Khz or 96Khz (MKH800 comes to mind) of audio cost 5-10 times more than what you budgeted for the recorder.

[philper]

I found that in inexpensive recorders, especially "shavers", recording at anything beyond 48k was pointless soundwise. The analog audio electronics at that price are just not up to the task.

phil p

[EtherealEntity]

I'm not so concerned with the frequency response - more a higher sample rate to better handle stretching algorithms. Unless picking up higher frequencies has something to do with that too.
Thanks - I guess I'll stick with something like the Sony

[philper]

Originally Posted by EtherealEntity

I'm not so concerned with the frequency response - more a higher sample rate to better handle stretching algorithms. Unless picking up higher frequencies has something to do with that too.
Thanks - I guess I'll stick with something like the Sony

Understand the need for high sample rate even if it isn't buying anything extra sound wise. The Sony D50 is good sounding but doesn't have the ability to record to a CF card, so file management is more of a hassle if you are generating and needing to download a lot of material quickly. On recent SFX jobs I was being asked to hand off files a couple of times a day to the shoot's data manager so he could send them off with the footage. W/o removable media that would have been pretty tough--I would need to have 2 D50s to keep rolling. There is an Edirol R4 for a good price right now on the JWSound.net "buy and sell" page, maybe that could work for you. I've seen some good deals on SD 702s recently, keep your eyes open.

phil p

[insomaniac]

FWIW, the cheapest thing you'll probably find that can do 192kHz would probably be the Korg MR-2, though it retails around $600 and has very little in the way of useful I/O.

[Pedantic Sound]

Originally Posted by insomaniac

FWIW, the cheapest thing you'll probably find that can do 192kHz would probably be the Korg MR-2, though it retails around $600 and has very little in the way of useful I/O.

Says it records DSD, I'd be interested to see what that sounds like from a handheld.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EtherealEntity

I'm not so concerned with the frequency response - more a higher sample rate to better handle stretching algorithms. Unless picking up higher frequencies has something to do with that too.
Thanks - I guess I'll stick with something like the Sony

Usually fx people record high Fs to pitch the sounds down and not lose top end and get muffled sounds.

So maybe you misunderstood. It's not so much about time stretching (while preserving pitch) but mostly about vari-speeding (like with a tape machine) the sounds down and keep the high end.

Of course this only makes sense when there`s content far above 20kHz.

Fs directly translates to frequency bandwidth but if your mic/pre etc. don't pickup anything beyond 20k it's just a waste of space.

Varispeeding that down will sound no different to a 48k recording.

[EtherealEntity]

Ok - the pitch shift benefit is understood. But simple time stretching should be helped by higher SR without higher FR right?

[EtherealEntity]

That Korg looks really nice.. I wonder what the mics are like. What is DSD?

[Pedantic Sound]

Originally Posted by EtherealEntity

That Korg looks really nice.. I wonder what the mics are like. What is DSD?

Direct Stream Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EtherealEntity

Ok - the pitch shift benefit is understood. But simple time stretching should be helped by higher SR without higher FR right?

Don't think so. But try it.

You could as well upres a regular 48 recording to 192k then time-stretch that and compare the result to simply stretching the 48k recording directly.

The frequency bandwidth of the 48k recording and the converted 192k file are identical.
Just as if you recorded directly at 96k or 192k but the mics won't go beyond 20kHz.

I doubt that the quality of the stretch will be any different.

[EtherealEntity]

^ Isn't it about there being more samples to work with? Upresing wouldn't achieve that as far as I know? I will however try it with my interface at 44 and 96 using an SM57.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by EtherealEntity

^ Isn't it about there being more samples to work with? Upresing wouldn't achieve that as far as I know? I will however try it with my interface at 44 and 96 using an SM57.

"more samples" /sec translates to frequency bandwidth in digital audio.

96000 samples are 96000 samples even if you SRC a 48kHz signal to 96KHz.

Let me know what you find.

Thing is: Lets assume you do have a mic that "hears" up to 48Khz and you record at 96k. You import that to a 96k session and time-stretch that. Lets assume you have a perfect algo that won't hurt the frequency content.

Then you import it into a 48k session via SRC. By doing that you will lose any content above 20kHz again. So unless you stay at 96k you can not preserve the information contained in the 96kHz file so in the end you could have recorded and worked at 48k in the first place.

Where it does make sense for FX is to pitch down the 96k file to bring down the HF content into an area that you're able to hear. So you still have some high content compared to a recording recorded at 48k and pitched down by 2 octaves resulting in a sound with only 5kHz of maximum HF content.